summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. | Your post is biased because it contrasts Muslim and " modern " societies. It proceeds from the assumption that modern societies are never Muslim and that Muslim societies are never modern. Maybe examine that assumption first? Also, is Islam the only religion which is incompatible with what you call " modern " society? The Old Testament would be just as incompatible, so why start with Islam when there's Christianity and Judaism to deal with? | cmv |
I don't think dealerships in various states should be protected from direct auto sales. CMV | Devil's advocate here. There was an episode of Planet Money awhile ago that delved into why car dealerships are the way they are. With the absence of dealerships and the protections as we have them now, it shifts an immense amount of power into the hands of the car manufacturers, who can ( and have in the past ) forced dealers to buy cars that just aren't selling. It shifts the losses for a poor market from the manufacturer to the dealers. | cmv |
I STILL agree with the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act - CMV | The main problem with the voter ID is inconvenience. Let's say I'm a college student that doesn't drive, and my college offers a bus service. I have no reason to get a driver's license or an ID. The DMV is out of the way, and I have a lot going on. Voter registration is difficult enough since there is no easy way to do it online. Why should I need to do one extra thing to exercise my right to vote? All I want to do is go to the polls on election day to pick the candidate that I prefer, but now I have to do one more thing before they'll allow me to vote. It just seems unnecessary to require something like that. | cmv |
I am an athiest who used to support gay marriage, but now is against it in support of Civil Unions. CMVback | Marriage is not a concept that is unique to Christianity, nor was it invented by Christianity. Native Americans had marriage ceremonies long before the white man ever crossed the ocean. Why should the Christian church hold a monopoly on what marriage is? | cmv |
I am an athiest who used to support gay marriage, but now is against it in support of Civil Unions. CMVback | The problem with this is that it's A LOT easier to keep " marriage " as a legal term and add " gay marriage " to that umbrella. Think about what would happen if people started promoting your idea, getting rid of " marriage " as a legal term altogether and trying to call it a " civil union " regardless of sex. " The gays are trying to take away OUR marriage! " The idea is, it's better to share the pre - existing term with a new group than to take away the title from the older group. And I'm sure that churches will adapt to this. I mean, it's not that hard to specify " church marriage " or " legal marriage. " You're adding an adjective to an umbrella term, it's not so hard. | cmv |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. | Ok, let's sum this up. You think allowing women to officially take on combat roles ( something that many women actually ended up doing anyway, unofficially ) is automatically going to reduce the effectiveness of the forces. But so far, no standards have been lowered, which you admit. You claim there is general concern that standards will be lowered, but they haven't been. So currently, there is no basis for thinking that forces will be less effective since everyone in reality has to pass the same standard. What are the combat standards anyway? Just out of curiosity? | cmv |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. | I think a major point that you've missed is that women help fill other roles in combat units that men cannot. You have to consider that the areas we are most active in right now are mostly musilm populated areas. In the role of a " frontline combat soldier " they actually do a lot more than fighting. They also do a lot of interacting the locals, public relations, providing medical assistance and other services. In musilm countries only women can interact with women without the wearing of a hijab, burka, or whatever the commonly accepted " modest " clothing is for the region. By including women into these units, you now allow our troops to interact with the other half of the population. This means healing them, gathering intelligence and other actions. This increases goodwill, and half the battle is knowing where the enemy is, so by doubling the population from whom we can gather intelligence, also greatly increases our combat effectiveness. Remember that our military units have many other actions than fighting | cmv |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. | If a woman can meet the physical standards set for infantrymen, then it is only sexist prejudice that would not allow her into the infantry. You're judging all women to be physically inferior, and you're wrong. But you're absolutely correct in that most women will not be physically or mentally qualified for the role, and can perfectly well serve in other roles. But if a woman can meet the standards, the only problem lies with you. | cmv |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. | Hasn't it worked out pretty well for the IDF so far? As for the physical requirements : they don't expect that in the field you will need to need to do 56 pushups in less than 2 minutes, 66 situps in 2 minutes, and run 2 miles in 14 : 42 minutes. And they don't expect that you'll need to do 50, 82, and run it in 15 : 36. Certainly there are fitness requirements in the field, but those vary depending on your job. The APFT does not reflect the skills the military expects you to need in the field. It's intended make sure you're staying in shape, because the military wants you to be disciplined, healthy, and reasonably fit, which is why there's a sliding scale based on age and gender. | cmv |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. | It's pretty easy to disproof your argument. Your math is wrong. You can't simply compare averages, median or peak values to argue here. The distribution of effectiveness of a strike force is never totally seperated between women and men. Although peak, medians and averages of woman might be less in most cases, there always will be some men worse than some women. Imagine you've got a pool of 10. 000 men and want to compile a strike force of 1000 men out of this pool. Although you take the best men you can get, i am going have a better strike force because i am going to choose my 1000 soldiers out of a pool of 10. 000 men and 10. 000 women. Although the women are on average weaker ( or whatever ) i am going to find women that are still stronger than the weakest man in your selection and thus creating a stronger strike force than yours. | cmv |
I believe that 100 years from now the American Flag will be looked upon with the same disgust as the Nazi Flag during WWII. CMV. | I'm going to leave my morals at the door and approach this from a realpolitik, analytical perspective. Nazi Germany was relatively short - lived. We think of Nazi Germany and we think of The Holocaust, of Hitler, of the SS. Even WITHOUT discussing the Holocaust, Nazi Germany is easy to hate because they lost the war, and the victims of their war crimes were / are highly visible, and they weren't around long enough to make super - visible long - lasting contributions to humanity ( and if they did, we won't know about it. ) Europe devestated the crap out of Africa and the Middle East, and the early founders of the USA decimated the natives... I don't want to get into specific bodycounts, just saying that the British Empire isn't considered anything like Nazi Germany despite having killed and maimed loads of people too. TL ; DR : You misunderstand how and why the Nazi flag is hated. I hate corporatism, greed and war as much as any other Redditor, but American history, culture, idealism, technology and even simply longevity ( which is tiny in the broader context of human empires ) will be admired for a long time after America itself ceases to exist. Also, you underestimate the degree to which American ideals ( and propaganda, if you're cynical ) have coloured global thought. People may hate certain elements of America, but America itself is too vast to be hated the way Nazi Germany is / was. | cmv |
There is one picture with a guy who's like " I built my business w / o gov't help " with arrows pointing to gov't help. There's another similar one except with the OWS movement. I feel they have the same effect of pointing out hypocrisy. CMV. | I don't think either picture is pointing out true hypocracy. Both contain strawmen arguments. In the first picture, just about every comment is pointing to something that the government has monopolized and consumers have no choice in. The guy in that picture is most likely referring to special government handouts which one can accept or refuse, which is not quite the same as using the USPS because the government won't let other postal companies form. Similarly, in the second picture, the comments are mostly pointing out things that are only made by corporations. Many leftists believe all these things could be made without corporations, but as long as corporations exist they don't have much of a choice. Also, not everyone in OWS is completely against all corporations, just specific ones with too much power and government influence. That being said, I still think both pictures are kind of funny. | cmv |
There is one picture with a guy who's like " I built my business w / o gov't help " with arrows pointing to gov't help. There's another similar one except with the OWS movement. I feel they have the same effect of pointing out hypocrisy. CMV. | Alright ill play the Devils advocate, I disagree with OWS, but here it goes. OWS technically had nothing to do with saying corporations are bad and should not be allowed to exist, OWS was against the, as they saw it, undue and unjust political influence that some corporations have within the political system. Its is not hypocritical to have an Iphone and say Apple Inc shouldn't be allowed to buy political power. Boycott you say? That would be a truly ineffectual, pointless and impossible exercise. No one can really exist in our society avoiding corporations, we can fight against their political power though. | cmv |
There is one picture with a guy who's like " I built my business w / o gov't help " with arrows pointing to gov't help. There's another similar one except with the OWS movement. I feel they have the same effect of pointing out hypocrisy. CMV. | The government help guy would not be hypocritical if he just said " I don't think the government should have helped me build my business. The problem is that he said the government didn't help, which is just factually untrue. OWS does not deny that big corporations provide a lot of things. They would just prefer that some other group provide those things. | cmv |
There is one picture with a guy who's like " I built my business w / o gov't help " with arrows pointing to gov't help. There's another similar one except with the OWS movement. I feel they have the same effect of pointing out hypocrisy. CMV. | Maybe I just don't know enough about OWS but I'm pretty sure their premise isn't " down with corporations, all corporations are evil. " I think it was more about corporatism and corporations being given preferential treatment by government at the expensive of the poor and middle - class. Also : Most of the OWS rage was directed at the financial industry, which doesn't actually produce a material good... although they can facilitate industrial production when they're not selling subprime mortgages to the poor and middle - class. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | But what if something comes up that proves that they wrongfully put someone to death? That could potentially make the state authorities look really bad, and the only thing that they could really do is apologize. I think that the national government should be able to do that, but only for very extreme cases such as high profile terrorist attacks. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | The justice system is imperfect and we now know, in the US at least, that innocent men have been put to death. If you are wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison, you can be exonerated and released. You cannot be released from death. Are you okay with men wrongfully being killed by the government just because it has not happened to you or someone you love? | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | Since my main logicl stance has been covered I will dd the more emotional one. For me, deaths seems like the easy way out. The loved ones of theperson you killed ( or harmed greatly ) must live with the reality of what you did everday. Everyday, they will have to think about it. So, if you killed my loved one, i dont wantyou to die, i want you to sit in prison, facing the relity of your actions every single dy just like I will. I am nnot implying that you will feel remorse, im simply saying prison is not super comfy. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | It's more expensive to kill a convict than to keep them for life in prison. Moreover, there's a surprisingly high error rate : I've seen statistics that say that as much as 10 % of death row convicts are later found innocent. I don't trust the state to decide who is and isn't worthy of killing. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | What criminals need is help and rehabilitation, regardless of their mental state. Yes, that's a lot harder than just locking them up, or just killing them off, and it doesn't necessarily satisfy that inner need for justice. But you have to look at criminals as products of society. No one is simply born evil. They're broken and need mending. Nothing is solved if they're just put to death. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | torture also accomplishes your two goals and is arguably a better deterrent than death. im sure most people would say a life in prison with while being tortured for hours on a daily basis is far worse than the death penalty. yet i think most would agree that this practice would unethical. just because a punishment fits the crime does not mean that it is ethical or that we have a right to inflict said punishment | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | Assume that the chance of someone who is imprisoned for life to escape prison is low enough that it can be ignored, and that the death penalty does not have a stronger deterring effect than imprisonment ( both of which I believe ). Would you still be pro death penalty? What would you gain from having someone killed instead of imprisoned? It seems to me that you want people dead, not because it's the lesser evil in some utilitarian cost - benefit analysis, but as goal in itself, which seems morally wrong to me. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | It fails to deter crime, is more expensive than life imprisonment, and kills innocent people. On any metric we can measure the death penalty is a failure. I could go into the fact that the government killing people devalues life or various other moral arguments but I don't need to. The death penalty is a failure anyway you want to measure it. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | And yet, gang crime hasn't stopped in those states that have the death penalty. People still kill other people. My biggest issue is that it costs so much more of the tax payers money to put someone on death row than it does to give them a life sentence. | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | Honest question : how many innocent people would you be willing to execute in order to keep the dearth penalty? Because they are inevitable with our justice system. To me, the whole idea of federal execution is such a horror that it's not work any benefit capital punishment could bring ( of which I doubt there are any ) | cmv |
I'm pro death penalty. CMV | Penn & Teller estimated that an innocent person could be coerced ( into what they think is a plea bargain out of an inescapable situation ) more than 50 % of the time. Police are renown for prosecuting anyone they can get their hands on it, in hopes of conviction. How many innocent people are you comfortable murdering to save tax money? | cmv |
I think that unjustifiable opinions are worthless. CMV. | Beliefs are held based on their utility value, real or perceived, not their objective reasonableness. What people say and what they supposedly believe should not be taken for face value. It can however shed light on their particular strategy or what they hope to GAIN by saying they hold a certain belief or when they say a certain thing. Stated beliefs and what people say are indicative of their motivations, but not good guides for determining objective truth. Additionally, people are self - serving conformists for survival reasons. Objective truth is pretty far down the list and is often thrown aside in order to conform with a group and benefit from it's power. Since I know I'm not that much different than most of you out there, aside from my markedly higher intelligence, it should be obvious that I'm basically telling most of you I could care less what you say you believe. This should annoy you and cause some type of reciprocal feeling within you toward me. That proves my point, namely, that I don't care what you think and you don't care what I think. What does matter is how my belief serves me and your belief serves you. | cmv |
I think that unjustifiable opinions are worthless. CMV. | Do you accept that axioms are an inescapable requirement for reasoning? And that they have to be accepted as true. So the concept of " justification " breaks down at some point. So then is your contention that axioms need to be as atomic as possible? | cmv |
I think that unjustifiable opinions are worthless. CMV. | The problem is that there are some opinions that are incredibly widely - held and nearly impossible to prove. For example, the opinion that happiness is good. You can't really prove it true, but so many other opinions and justifications rely on it being true. | cmv |
I think that unjustifiable opinions are worthless. CMV. | People often have a well - supportable opinion that they unconsciously know the reasons for, but haven't had to spell it out before. Often, it can take a lengthy process for the person to uncover what their reasons really are. Sometimes they need help to do this. If it becomes obvious after a while that they literally cannot uncover any real reasons, then you'd be right. But needing help to think something through does not mean a person shouldn't be taken seriously. | cmv |
I think people are overreacting to the NSA scandal. CMV. | Even if people are overreacting, I feel as if it's the only correct response. Underreact? It's good, keep doing it. Moderate reaction? Keep doing it, they'll forget in a week or two. Overreaction that leads to people whining about it for months on end? The most effective way to get your point across. | cmv |
I believe we would be better off, if all governments were forced to become " Open Source " - CMV | Where do you draw the line? Should our government spend billions of dollars on technology to [ supposedly ] make us safer or building some kind of weapon / vehicle / satellite / propulsion system only to plop it on the internet for free? If there were literally no secrets about how the government operated it would be chaos. I really think you need to limit your scope of " open " to perhaps more discrete areas. You mentioned voting and I absolutely agree there. The voting systems in use by millions of people are owned by partisan companies put in place by partisan Secretary of States. There is a lot of evidence that shows Ohio votes were changed electronically but you can't audit the software or the database because it's considered copyright material. The company literally owns the election results and we're not allowed to see them. This is clearly wrong. Given the Texas GOP just changed the voting time on their abortion bill even though everyone was watching and caught them on it - clearly the Presidency is a big enough prize that the same is being done there. | cmv |
I believe we would be better off, if all governments were forced to become " Open Source " - CMV | Should who votes for who be public knowledge? Does a government not have legitimate reasons to keep its foreign policy, intelligence, and military programs a secret? How far down the rabbit hole are we talking here? | cmv |
I believe that driving is a right and not a privilege. CMV | I don't have a drivers license, but the roads and infrastructure still benefit me. I take the bus to work, as the most concrete example. ( The bus mostly drives on the road ). But also anything I buy from a store was delivered partially by road. With the exception of stores with helipads and elaborate tube transportation networks. Also if I need an ambulance, one will arrive and take me to the hospital using the roads I pay taxes for. | cmv |
I believe that driving is a right and not a privilege. CMV | I would like to point out that the supreme court made a decision that said a license is not required to drive. They said that anyone could drive, but those who were using driving for commercial reasons would have to have a license. So I kinda agree with you, but not on all points. | cmv |
I believe that driving is a right and not a privilege. CMV | A part of our taxes goes towards jails. Do I want to make use of one? Nope. Neither would the government ever want me to, because they want to keep crime at a minimum. But jails are still necessary. With that train of thought, as much as jails and roads are a necessity, I think it's also necessary to prevent anyone who is a danger to others from walking or driving on the streets. That's why I think that driving is a privilege and that people should pass the necessary tests before being able to do so. | cmv |
I believe that driving is a right and not a privilege. CMV | Rights are timeless, in the sense that they are a " Natural property of Man derived from the fact of his existence ", while privileges ebb and wane with culture, granted by others. A Right is not a Right if exercising it comes at the expense of anyone else's Rights. We all have the right to think, to have the beliefs we do. Doing so doesn't come at the expense of any one else's ability to believe what they want to believe. Likewise we have the natural born right of autonomous movement of our bodies, because we are the natural owners of our bodies. But not the right to automatically own a car, or aeroplane, or spaceship, for movement. It is by the grace of others, and not our own will, that these inventions exist. Afterall, if driving was a right, then humanity from the caveman to the invention of cars underwent a severe human right deprivation! | cmv |
I believe * more * socialism is needed for the U. S. to prosper CMV | Holy crap health care is expensive where you live. In New Zealand health care cost the country $ 2, 616M, with a population of 4. 405M under a no fault scheme. That means that every accident in New Zealand was covered, with no law suits to establish blame, for roughly $ 594 per person per year. This is a simplification of the system, as it is funded through levys on income ( $ 1. 70 per $ 100 ), car registration ( $ 334 per vehical ) and business earnings ( $ 1. 15 per $ 100 ). So not only is health care sociallised, accident fault is as well. And it seems a hell of a lot cheaper than what it costs over there. | cmv |
I believe that the onus of proof should fall completely on the defendant in cases of self - defense. CMV | Because that would cause people who actually could use the defense to be wary of defending themselves, and get killed. Or worse, get other people killed, because self - defense does apply to protecting other people. The whole point the defense exists is so that the law isn't discouraging people from protecting themselves from crime. Take the defense away and suddenly you are again. | cmv |
I believe that the onus of proof should fall completely on the defendant in cases of self - defense. CMV | It is simply impossible in most cases to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, there are often no witnesses when you are forced to kill someone in self defense. The burden is by the preponderance of the evidence. If it was beyond a reasonable doubt we would have to throw a rape victim who killed her attacker in prison... because she wouldn't have enough evidence to prove she was justified beyond a reasonable doubt without a third party witness. We value the right to use lethal force in self defense too much to allow that, we consider it a fundamental right. Compared to most self defense cases there is actually a lot of evidence in this case, and it almost all favors the defendant, but it still seems he wouldn't be able to prove he acted in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He can easily meet the preponderance of the evidence burden. | cmv |
I believe that the onus of proof should fall completely on the defendant in cases of self - defense. CMV | It is rare for the defendant's testimony to be the only evidence in a murder trial. People on trial for murder claim self - defense all the time, but the prosecution is able to show that the defendant's story does not line up with the physical evidence of the case. Its just like any other crime. Someone is accused of a crime, they state their defense, and the prosecution discredits that defense if they can. I see no reason the make self defense a special case. The whole thing about killing the star witness is irrelevant too. All killings kill the star witness. In many other crimes the victim is of no help to the police since they can't identify their attacker, so other means of identification are used. Its just police work. I guess where you think the burden of proof should be depends on if you think its more important to put the guilty in prison or to keep the innocent out. | cmv |
I believe that the onus of proof should fall completely on the defendant in cases of self - defense. CMV | Lets step back a bit. Lets say Joe was being changed with murder after he killed Bob who was trying to kill him. Imagine that this is a very cut and dry self defense. Now Joe has not actually committed murder, nor has he committed manslaughter in any form. Joe has killed someone but murder and even manslaughter are defined as more than causing the death of another person. That means that Joe has not committed any crime and that even by admitting to killing Bob he has not admitted to any crime. This means that the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution because they are tasked with proving the crime not just that Bob has died by Joe's hands. | cmv |
I believe that the onus of proof should fall completely on the defendant in cases of self - defense. CMV | Your point is mostly that burden of proof is bad in these cases because it's hard to prove. The principle of " innocent until proven guilty " isn't " innocent until proven guilty or if it's really hard to prove guilt ". All sorts of cases are difficult to prove. It'd be absurd to shift burden of proof to the defendant because it's hard to prove. That's the exact point of putting the burden of proof on the prosecution - - it's hard to prove someone's guilt. | cmv |
I Believe That Personhood is Irrelevant to the Topic of Abortion. CMV | I disagree heartily with the main point, that the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant to the topic of abortion. In the same way that the morality of slave - trading hinges on the status of the slaves, to use one example, the morality of aborting an unborn child hinges on the status of that unborn child. The question of what we are morally permitted to do with the unborn demands that we answer the prior question of what the unborn actually is. Abortion is a procedure that involves removing an unborn human from the mother's womb, and in later stages of pregnancy, stopping a beating heart and tearing a fragile body into pieces. If we're going to talk about whether or not the performance of that procedure is morally permissible, the first question on our minds should be about what the unborn child is. A robust and useful discussion of an issue like this will involve a look at as many relevant points of data as possible, and weighing them against each other in order to arrive at the best possible solution. It seems to me irrational to have a discussion on abortion that omits the question of what it actually is that is being aborted. | cmv |
I Believe That Personhood is Irrelevant to the Topic of Abortion. CMV | The only argument I've heard against this is that the choice of bringing someone into a situation is relevant. Eg, say you offer someone a ride on your boat. He agrees, and the two of you go out to sea. Then you decide you no longer want this friend on your boat. So you tell him to get off. But that's ridiculous - - you're in the middle of the ocean, and your friend has no way of getting of your boat and getting back to shore. You have no obligation to allow your friend to use your boat, generally speaking. However, in the situation you've created, I think you certainly are obligated to allow your friend to remain on the boat until he can reasonably get off. | cmv |
I Believe That Personhood is Irrelevant to the Topic of Abortion. CMV | If a random person asked you to feed them, and you refused, then you'd be quite within your rights to do so. However, if you fail to feed your own child, that's a different issue. The hypothetical life - support situation is therefore not necessarily an applicable analogy. | cmv |
I don't agree with abortion under any circumstances. CMV | " I don't agree with abortion under any circumstances " Why do you think that makes any difference beyond your own personal choices? What is it about your opinion on the matter that gives it more weight than the opinion of the woman who wants the abortion? | cmv |
I believe that online dating sites are for white males only because men of color have way less reply rates CMV | Yes, it's true that us Asians find it more difficult to date white women through online dating. But you're making a HUGE leap. It's harder, it isn't impossible! And there is a very real possibility that the women who don't message me back are not worth it anyway. Otherwise, non - white guys stay on dating sites because they do get ass. Plus white women are not the only women in the world. | cmv |
I believe that online dating sites are for white males only because men of color have way less reply rates CMV | Funny, because the best way to succeed in real life dating is also to be tall and white. I wonder if there is a corelation.. In america white men are seen ( phrasing important ) as being financially stable. This is one of the most important qualities in a mate, the perceived ability to raise young. Thus if there is a perception, true or not, that a certain group of people is better at raising kids, they will by far bar none receive more responses than anybody else. You arent talking about a problem with online dating. Youre talking about a problem with racial stereotypes being displayed in an area you didnt think theyd be present in. | cmv |
CMV i believe abortion debates have been overdone and that opinions on the matter rarely if ever change. | People aren't really debating because they think vaguely changing someone on the internet does anything. They're doing it to let people know that their own opinion is out there and still exists and is a reality those other people need to consider. Also, to feel good about themselves, of course. | cmv |
CMV i believe abortion debates have been overdone and that opinions on the matter rarely if ever change. | Most of the abortion debates miss the point entirely, which is part of why people change sides on the issue so rarely. For example, pro - lifers are constantly positing that it's immoral to kill babies, which is a point that not a person in the world is contesting. ( Well, okay, a few are, but they're trolls. ) Pro - choicers believe that a fetus is not a baby, and that is a point that rarely posited in response. On the flip side, pro - choicers often harp on how much access to legal abortions helps the status of women in society. Well, of course it does - that point is rarely contested. But to a pro - lifer, that misses the point entirely. The simple fact is that 99 % of people having debates on abortion are only parroting the thing that made them have that opinion - with complete disregard as to whether the person on the other side of the debate would be affected by it in the slightest. In other words, yes the abortion debate is overplayed, but only because eople are bad at it. Most of the more interesting and novel opinions / arguments on abortion happen within an " echo chamber " within either the pro - life or pro - choice side, and rarely see the light of day in the abortion debate at large. | cmv |
CMV i believe abortion debates have been overdone and that opinions on the matter rarely if ever change. | I am not going to arguing that opinions rarely change, but the fact is that even if they change only rarely, they do change. This is clearly demonstrated in the fact that abortion is currently legal in many significant forms. If you look at the narrow scope of the present it is true that the debate seems stationary, but all hotly contested cultural issues go through periods of stasis, and to refuse to talk about the issue or to give up the attempts argue your particular side is defeatism. Issues like slavery and capital punishment took decades, even centuries to resolve even once debate on the issues started. Nonetheless, progress, however glacial it was, continued because there were those who continued to fight on the side that they believed was right. | cmv |
CMV i believe abortion debates have been overdone and that opinions on the matter rarely if ever change. | As someone who has had their opinion changed on abortion, I think you're wrong. There are a lot of emotional issues involved in the discussion, but there are factual issues that both sides can agree on. A discussing expanding from these real, factual issues has a very good chance of persuading someone to change their view. If you have two people legitimately interested in discussing the fact who are both willing to change their opinion, then a good debate can take place. But if you're going into a debate hoping to change the other person's mind while remaining steadfast yourself you won't have a productive discussion. | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | Just to be clear, you think a minor should have their entire life thrown away for taking a naked picture of themselves and sending it to a friend / boyfriend / whatever? Also, why girls only? Why shouldn't a boy who takes a picture of his penis suffer the same punishment? | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | Your claim is : more naked pictures of children - even when these pictures aren't being distributed or generated for the purposes of CP - cause more harm than putting teenagers in prison for extended periods of time. Your claim is, on its face, ridiculous. It's clear that decades in federal prison causes much more clear and direct harm than minors sexting one another. How can you " not fathom a defense for these people "? Are you so blindly obsessed with an equal application of the law that you can't evaluate consequence? Prosecutors do this all the time - should we prosecute all attempted suicides since they're illegal? No... because it aids no one. The defense is : they're minors ( yet to finish cognitive development ) + their action is biologically understandable and causes no direct harm. | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | So, if a 16 year old sends a nude picture of herself to her husband and father of her child, she should be sent to jail and labeled a felon and sex offender for life? Really? For sending a nude to her husband? Do you really think that would be moral and would make the world a better place? But, by your definitions she would be jailed and labeled a sex offender. How is that justice? To quote one of my favorite shows ( Star Trek : TNG ), " There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. " | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | I simply can't fathom the idea that you would be OK with essentially ruining a child's life for something like this. The age of majority exists for a reason. Do you think these minors do this with the intent of " production and distribution of child pornography " - really? | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | The whole reason why molesting kids and child pornography is wrong is because of power difference between an adult and a child and resulting relatively high probablity of harm. No difference means no crime. Two underage people of similar ages having sex or sexting is not wrong or immoral. And so it should not be illegal. | cmv |
I believe every minor that takes naked pictures of themselves and texts them to others should be arrested and charged with production and distribution of child pornography. CMV | Simply put, there is nothing wrong with a young boy or girl being attracted to another young boy or girl. Child pornography laws exist to protect the children being taken advantage of. If they were prosecuted as distributors of child pornography, who is being helped here? | cmv |
I believe the joke " Once you go black, you're a single mom " isn't racist, it's accurate. CMV | The phrase you reference seems to imply that the statistically probable outcome of an interracial relationship between a black man and a non - black woman is that the woman will get pregnant and the man will leave her. Do you have data on how frequently that happens? The stat you cite doesn't provide us with that information. I'm also wondering, how does that stat account for joint custody agreements? What about interracial children? | cmv |
I believe the joke " Once you go black, you're a single mom " isn't racist, it's accurate. CMV | The joke is racist whether or not it is a fact. The joke itself is pointing out a negative racial trait. This is racist. Now aside from that, the data you presented doesn't really address the point of the joke at all. The joke assumes that once you have sex with a black person you end up being a single mom. So the data that would be needed to call this joke a fact would be the percentage of black fathers that leave their partners after having kids. | cmv |
I believe the joke " Once you go black, you're a single mom " isn't racist, it's accurate. CMV | It is possible for a joke to be rooted in facts and still be offensive. For example if you're at a wedding and joke about how the couple will probably be divorced in a few years. People will not accept your defense that statistically you're right. It is fine to cite a statistic about the race of single parents, but people will respond badly if you then go on and joke about it. It's not the statistic, that's racist, but when you construct a joke from the fact, people might conclude that you don't like black people. Like when you make fun of the Catholic Church, people might conclude that you don't like the Catholic Church. | cmv |
I believe it is understandable and even logical that pro - lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape. CMV | Ethical universalism is not, and never can be, an internally consistent meta - ethical framework. Period. " X is right / good / just " has no more truth value than " the tree is up. " With proper context ( ie, if I point at a tree ) it is a valid statement, but that doesn't mean all trees must then be " up. " You might say " surely murder is wrong... unless you are murdering Hitler, of course. " But such a qualification puts you squarely into the ethical relativism circle. " But my universal ethic states that all murder other than Hitler and convicts is wrong " may seem like a valid statement, but it implies that you've considered every possible exception in order to make reach a universal truth, which is, of course, impossible. Therefore, you are one again a relativist - a consequentialist to be exact. Trying to define murder as " bad killing " just puts you into a linguistic circle - ie, begging the question. Once you've escaped the universalist ethical trap, you start seeing the world as being quite nuanced. This, in turn, makes rejecting such universal statements, which willfully ignore context and consequences, the only logical position. | cmv |
I believe it is understandable and even logical that pro - lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape. CMV | In my experience there are very few who hold to the notion of no abortion for any reason. In essence you are trying to tie the beliefs of very, very few to the whole pro - life faction. That just isn't the case. | cmv |
I believe it is understandable and even logical that pro - lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape. CMV | It is logical to believe that abortion in cases of rape is murder if you subscribe to the belief that a non - sentient, non - viable fetus is a person. However, does this mean that your belief, which is not supported with empirical evidence, should be used as a means to force women to act as incubators for nine months? No. In doing so, these individuals are denying women agency, sovereignty, and telling them that their rights are less than those of a non - sentient, non - viable fetus. | cmv |
I believe it is understandable and even logical that pro - lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape. CMV | You're approaching it from a different perspective, I think. The Pro - choice advocates that vilify pro - lifers who oppose rape abortions due so because it's an example of their flawed philosophy leading to extremist behaviors. If you accept the statement Abortion = Murder, you're correct. Perhaps an analogy would be best to illustrate this. There are two men ; one man is an atheist, the other man is a religious zealot. The two disagree on whether or not there is a God. This is understandable. But suppose the religious zealot used his belief in his religion, perhaps one that characterizes women as second - class citizens, to mistreat all women and advocate policies that discriminate against them. From his perspective he's totally justified in doing so, based on his beliefs. From the other man's perspective, he's an extremist who is using his flawed belief to advocate something barbaric. | cmv |
I believe it is understandable and even logical that pro - lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape. CMV | Extremists of all stripes construct logically consistent and self - reinforcing belief systems. It's the only way to protect yourself from glimpsing the nuances of complex issues and having a bit of empathy for people with other viewpoints. I see no reason to respect that tendency. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | I could not disagree more. There is no doubt in my mind that the movement should be called egalitarianism. This is much better, because it is a real word and equalism sounds dumb. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | " Equalism " sounds like it would basically be a combination of feminism and MRA, which isn't a bad thing. But it doesn't make feminism or MRA obsolete either. There could be be new movement that combines racial equality and anti - war, but that wouldn't make existing racial equality or anti - way movements obsolete. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | If you check some stats, women are far more repressed than male in their rights and far more prone to being raped. Feminism is the movement that protects these human beings just like the fight against rascism and homophobia, etc. Are you suggesting we should stop doing equalist movements to go for equalism? The problem with that is the lack of efficiency, we need specific equalist movements to get things done. Also, everyone has their favorites. That doesn't mean they only want their position to get better and lower the others, simply that they are touched by a particular cause. Also, I don't think that in serious medias the image of feminism is that horrible. It is certain that machists will have a bad image of feminism but if you check it on a larger scale, feminism is one form of equalism and the people who fight for it and try to speak up for it are not " male - hating " and even sometimes, likeme, are males. It is certain that sensationalist medias will only keep track of the extremist but then every movement should be brought down, not only feminism. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | One of the issues I have a problem with is that feminists seem to always have to defend themselves immediately that " they aren't THAT ( man - hating ) kind of feminist ". This is speaking simply from my experience, but it seems as though no other social or political movement has to have that talk quite so often or quite so immediately as feminists do. As a liberal, or a conservative, etc etc, though people may criticize you, people don't seem to automatically assume that you are part of a crazy fringe group quite so quickly. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | Would you make the same argument to the NAACP and other racial lobby groups? That they should all band together and fight for'Racial Equality " instead of dealing with their communities specific issues? What about a group dedicated to saving the polar bear? Should they be equally committed to saving the rainforest and go by the same name? I think that would be an extremely inefficient way of going about things. Separate groups have separate issues. I see no problem in each group lobbying for their community / issue while simultaneously working towards the same aim. In the cases outlines here, racial equality, gender equality and environmental advocacy. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | Equalism sounds good, and it umbrellas all the rights movements, but the worry is about erasing each movement's specific location on the timeline to equality. You mention gender and race, I'd assume LGBT and any others could be included. Wouldn't Equalism be the end goal ( and obviously apply to each specific movement )? I think it's still worth breaking it up into certain movements. For instance, a lot of people would hear " Equalism " and not even think that Men's Rights are a piece of that puzzle, as they've likely never realized there's a Men's Rights Movement. Similarly, Feminism still has Feminist - specific goals to reach ( several already mentioned here, like equal rights in the workplace ). I don't completely disagree with what you're proposing, I just think that " Feminism " " MRA " " LGBT " " Race Equality " etc, can accomplish their specific goals more effectively with their current branding, though they are all obviously part of Equalism. | cmv |
I believe " Feminism " is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to " Equalism ". CMV | Because " Equalism " is too bland and wide - reaching. Like cancer, inequality comes in many flavors, and many find it easier and more inspiring to fight against only one or a few at a time. Feminism fights the oppression of women, mostly. Anti - racists fight the oppression of racial ( and often ethnic ) minorities, mostly. The 99 % fight the oppression of those of us who aren't wealthy by those who are. And so forth. There is no reason to change the name of the movement, and it wouldn't work anyway ( witness the progressive evolution of terms for economic downturn ( " panic ", " depression ", " recession ", etc. ) and the similar cycle of names for dark - skinned people ). | cmv |
I don't think there's anything inherently bad about economic inequality. CMV | You're forgetting equal opportunity. Inequality wouldn't be so bad if everyone started the same and worked their way up with their own ingenuity. But instead we have abominations like the Mars family. | cmv |
I don't think there's anything inherently bad about economic inequality. CMV | In addition to / u / AnxiousPolitics great comment, I'll add that people generally have decreasing marginal utility ( happiness, well - being, etc ) to wealth. As an example, $ 100 is worth less to a millionaire than someone with near - zero net worth and a job paying $ 20 an hour ( roughly the median in the US right now ). So unequal distribution of wealth decreases aggregate utility. I'll also add that your example of six mansions and planets is ridiculous. We aren't anywhere close to that scenario right now or even in the foreseeable future. A more apt scenario ( especially from a global standpoint ) is the poor person working to provide basic sustenance for the family and a roof over their heads versus the wealthy with multi - million dollar homes that they travel between on a seasonal basis. | cmv |
I believe that Capitalism and Democracies cannot co - exist. The former will inevitably degrade and destroy the latter. CMV | Capitalism and democracy can co - exist depending on the kind of democracy and what is up for vote. Under absolute democracy, also called tyranny by majority, everything is up for vote, and the barest majority can decide anything - if 50. 1 % of the people want to kill the other 49. 9 %, they can. At the opposite end is managerial democracy, in which the principles on which laws are based aren't up for vote, but there are elections to elect people who write specific laws and generally manage the government. Most democracies are somewhere between the two. The closer a democracy is to the managerial ideal, the more compatible it is with capitalism ( a term which I am using to mean " a system characterized by private property rights, self - ownership, and freedom of association " ). The greater the voters'power to determine policies, the more they can restrict individual liberty, for example, by banning " homosexual propaganda " ( as was done in Russia recently ) or giving the government a monopoly on the delivery of first - class mail. | cmv |
I believe that Capitalism and Democracies cannot co - exist. The former will inevitably degrade and destroy the latter. CMV | Assuming that your assumptions are correct, prior to statement 6, capitalism and democracy Do exist. Prior to the rise of the oligarchy democracy is working. You can not look at the final state of a governing system, and from only that, determine if the governing system is to be correct. For example, just because a democracy ended in a coup, does not mean that at no point, the democracy was not working. If your statement is true, then you must accept that democracy does not exist in any western country, as every western country is capitalist to a degree, and as you said capitalism and democracy can not coexist. | cmv |
I believe illegal immigration should be a misdemeanor civil offense like having an expired license or not having the proper permit. Thanks and CMV. | The reality is that the US simply can not meet the demand of people wanting to live here without significantly lowering its quality of life. Social programs, government offices, court systems, employment opportunities, and schooling simply can not handle a full scale influx of immigrants. Nations don't have open borders for very good reasons other than that they simply have been that way historically. | cmv |
I believe illegal immigration should be a misdemeanor civil offense like having an expired license or not having the proper permit. Thanks and CMV. | This simply doesn't make sense. If you don't have a proper permit, they're not going to just say " okay, just pay this fine and keep right on going. " They're going to stop you, tell you you can't keep doing what you're doing, and force you to go through the full process to get the permit you need. This already resembles the deportation model : they're forced to stop living in the country they can't legally live in, and told to legally immigrate if they want to do so. | cmv |
I believe everyone's opinion deserves equal respect, even if I personally find their opinion ridiculous. CMV | Why should I respect someone who thinks it's ok to deny other groups equal rights? Why should I respect someone who tells me I'm not equal to them? And even more so, why should I respect someone's opinion which includes murder or genocide? There are groups who think all gays should be killed. Why should I respect that opinion? | cmv |
I believe everyone's opinion deserves equal respect, even if I personally find their opinion ridiculous. CMV | Ideas have consequences, our reactions to those ideas and the people promulgating them should be grounded in what the real world effects of those beliefs are. An example is climate - change deniers. Though the science is settled and an astounding consensus has been reached many ( often wrapped up with other semi - related political opinions ) deny this reality and are thus putting the future of civilization and many magnitudes of species at risk. And just like with creationists this conclusion is often reached with little or no understanding of the actual facts. | cmv |
I believe everyone's opinion deserves equal respect, even if I personally find their opinion ridiculous. CMV | To what degree would a blatantly testable false and ridiculous opinion be respected? What if it were a dangerous opinion? When you say an opinion is to b respected, can it be respectfully dismissed? Should one with a ridiculous viewpoint be humored or accommodated? | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | Well to get to this type of system, you have to look at how you'd answer the question " Who owns your body? " For the state to be able to mandate organ donation, it would have to own your body. If the state can claim ownership of bodies, it then becomes possible for the state to force people into a lot of different policies, which is not necessarily a good thing at all, if you think about it. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | I would just point out that we've already done the experiment for a while, and the opt - out option is already so effective that there's hardly any room for improvement. While doing something to reach 100 % across the board would obviously be a little better, one has to weigh this very marginal improvement against the effects that such a move by the state would cause. People value freedom, so if we can leave their perception of liberty unaffected while still achieving largely the same results, this would be the far superior option. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | You've got to know that there are some really weird people in the world, and that we should do our best to make it as comfortable as possible for everybody, that's why I think there should be an option to opt out of it. examples A person that is really scared of it. Maybe for some reason somebody is terrified that they when he will die they will cut open his body and take everything out. This might not be a rational thought be all phobias are irrational. So shouldn't that person be given peace of mind by opting out instead of living a life of fear. Religion : What if you believe that after you die you will still need your body. Reincarnation or afterlife or whatever things people come up with. Also some people like satanism and don't want to help people. Also just because it's your right. Freedom is something that is very important and if I don't want something to happen with my body than I should have the right to choose so, without having to give any explanation to anybody. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | As it's already been put, mandatory isn't the way to go, just presumed consent with a lot of public awareness stuff about it and an easy quick way to opt out of the donation. Simply put, we don't need that many organs. If even 50 % of the population is superstitious about it and doesn't want to donate, just roll your eyes at them and let it be, you still have half the world donating theirs, most of which would be rejected as that's still way too much. My guilty admission is that I am not currently marked as an organ doner even though I have no objection to it all, just because I've been too lazy to actually fill in the forms that give my consent to donate, there are billions like me. I'm gonna do mine pretty soon when i get my drivers license, though : ) | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | Your post immediately reminded me of this book. Also, to have a supply of organs there should also be demand for it. I would rather have more money spent on stem cell research. In each organ, there are niches which contain stem cells for that particular organ. If cultured carefully, we can eventually clone the entire organ which will be 100 % compatible to the patient which is a safer method than to try with a spare organ from a different individual with a change of rejection. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | I'm a little late to the game, and it seems those before me have done a nice job of convincing you, but I'll add my two cents. I don't believe it should be mandatory. But, I do believe it should be mandatory if you would also like to recieve organs. I'm willing to bet many more people would participate in the system if you had to give in order to recieve. For some reason, this idea is often left out in the opt - in / opt - out debate. I think it is a simple and elegant way to increase organ donations. Having said that, I agree with your new view. I've read some of the related research and an opt - out system seems to be the best way to go about it. Funny how just forcing people to do a little paper work changes the results so drastically. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | I disagree, as I plan on donating my body to science. I could give a few people a few organs, or I could put my body to bigger use and allow future life savers to practice on my body, or do whatever they need bodies for. Mess labs, body farms, practice organs, those have to come from somewhere. I know we are near hologram bodies for mess labs, but actual human corpses are always best to learn the body with. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | as far as an abortion and not donating organs go. they are not the same thing. If you take no action in a pregnancy, it will come to term. If you take no action to donate your organ, the other person will die. Therefore, ethically speaking, you are not moral obligated to save the other person because you are not actively killing him / her. However, in the abortion case you are ACTIVELY terminating the pregnancy. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | It is against some people's religion. I actually have a friend who is terrified of being cut. Even paper cuts freak him out. It isn't even the blood, he just thinks it's bad for something inside your skin to be exposed. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | Money. Carina Melchior regained consciousness just before her organs were to be harvested. ( That one sparked a heated debate over my Thanksgiving Dinner! ) Patrick McMahon, a former transplant coordinator, filed a lawsuit claiming that hospitals are pressured to meet organ quotas. But here is a scenario to consider : you come into the hospital in really bad shape after a car accident. You fall into a coma, but your vitals are strong. In another part of the hospital sits a patient in need of a kidney. You have the same blood type. The patient happens to be a member of the family that just donated $ 10 Million dollars for a new hospital wing. | cmv |
I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. CMV. | Presumed consent is a better option. By most estimates, presumed consent would produce a huge increase in organ availability, while avoiding the reactance response that people tend to exhibit when they perceive that authorities have taken away options or restricted their former freedoms. By preserving the individual's ability to object, you'd also prevent religious conservatives from using your mandatory organ donation law as a springboard to curtail bodily autonomy in other areas for the purported greater good. ( Ex : aborton rights ). If you make organ donation mandatory, somebody is guaranteed to challenge this in court. A decision upholding your policy would create a precedent that could be used to limit personal freedom in other areas. A decision overturning your policy would, obviously, eviscerate the benefits you'd hoped to achieve, and could bias people against organ donation the future ( since now they'll see donation as something Big Government wants them to do and, indeed, tried to unconstitutionally coerce them into doing ). | cmv |
I believe the extent of USA \ UK spying on European countries and EU offices is cause for justified outrage and not at all " business as usual ". CMV. | You have NO idea what normal amounts of espionage are. Stop pretending like you do. You also have no idea what type of or level of spying Germany and France are doing back on the US. You're entire argument is built upon you thinking you know about the intelligence community and what is standard practice in it. Literally everything you said is predicated upon you having some idea whether what's going on is outside of the norm. You have no idea. At all. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 02 / 13 | I was never pro - life, but I used to believe that those that objected to it based on the sanctity of life at least had some ground to stand on. I could respect their viewpoint, at least - reproductive rights just wasn't on the top of my list at that time. When George Tiller was murdered, in church, sitting with his family, all of my illusions on that point were shattered. It has since become my biggest social issue - I refuse to be intimidated by hypocrites and terrorists. | cmv |
I believe that Zimmerman's belief that his life was in danger was unreasonable. CMV. | Trayvon had no injuries except for the cut on his hand. Zimmerman actually had injuries, but with none on his hands. Also, there is eyewitness testimony that puts Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman. Furthermore, this eyewitness stated that the person on top was throwing their arms downward like to punch someone. The eyewitness also stated that he thought the person on bottom was screaming for help. So, Zimmerman just got sucker punched and now has someone he doesn't know on top of him repeatedly punching him in the head and slamming his head against concrete. Furthermore, he is screaming for help and no one is coming. Then, he sees Trayvon going for his gun. You honestly think it is unreasonable for him at this point to fear that he may be substantially harmed or killed if he doesn't stop what is being done to him by Trayvon. | cmv |
I believe that Zimmerman's belief that his life was in danger was unreasonable. CMV. | I think it is pretty reasonable to think you are in danger when your head is being bashed into the ground. Just because someone takes a class on mma doesn't mean they can defend themselves. It also doesn't make the back of their head any harder when being beat against the ground. If you don't think it is justified go out and grab a cop and get him on the ground and start beating his head into the ground and see if he don't shoot your ass and leave you bleeding. This trial is a fiasco just like the rest of America today. | cmv |
I don't think low voter turnout is a problem. CMV. | Whether it is a problem depends on what you consider the goal of the election. I think a fairly common goal would be for the population of eligible voters to choose a representative. If that is the goal it follows that you want as much participation as possible to ensure the correct result. Tyranny of the vocal minority is a real thing. I've seen many local elections where low voter turnout has allowed results that would never happen in the November General Election. Also, low voter turnout can indicate other systemic problems such as poor polling place selection, lack of sufficient public notice, or overly burdensome procedures. As such it is still a problem because those people who did not vote may have wanted to vote and simply were denied the opportunity. Assuming notice in the first place, non - voters are at least making a choice, but don't assume everyone's choice calculus is the same. Some people really do have the deck stacked against them getting registered and getting a ballot ( the homeless come to mind ). | cmv |
I don't think low voter turnout is a problem. CMV. | Let's define government as any institution which backs its authority with the threat of violence. It's a correct definition, because if you resist any law and it's enforcement enough, you will find yourself dead. A vote, then, is basically saying " my worldview should be imposed on others with the threat of violence. " People who don't believe in imposing their worldview on others should just not vote, in that case. Therefore, low voter turnout is not a problem, it can be seen as a rejection of the existence of government. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.