summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't think low voter turnout is a problem. CMV. | The main problem is a lack of correlation. Yes, if uninformed people didn't vote, then nothing is really harmed by that. But the problem is that many informed people don't vote, and many uninformed people do because someone told them they should vote for X. ( This is often " their pastor ", but there are obviously other sources of influence that are not sources of actual information. ) | cmv |
I don't think low voter turnout is a problem. CMV. | Dismissing everybody who doesn't vote as uninformed is a false generalisation. Another reason people might decline to vote is the belief that their vote doesn't matter and won't influence the outcome. The people who are voting aren't universally informed either as it's not uncommon for people to loyally vote for their candidate / party regardless of ( changes in their ) position. However, the most important factor in determining whether or not people vote is whether there are candidates / parties running which are worthy of your vote. Voting for the lesser evil has you voting for an evil nonetheless. A large percentage of the eligible populations neglecting to vote should be treated as a systemic problem which requires to be solved. | cmv |
I don't think firefighters are heroes. CMV. | I think the distinction is that they both put their lives on the line AND protected and save the lives of other citizens. Putting your life on the line just for money isn't heroic, and saving someone while not enduring any real risk yourself is admirable but not really heroic. Putting your life on the line to save the lives of others is what's heroic. | cmv |
I don't think firefighters are heroes. CMV. | Firefighters very directly protect people, something most people strongly identify with. Most importantly, they undergo a high level of personal risk to do so, with relatively low reward ( firefighters aren't exactly rolling in money ). Do any of the other professions on your list have all of those factors? Fishing, logging, roofing are all risky, but they don't involve protecting people. Doctors, air traffic controllers and health inspectors protect people, but the latter two do so mostly indirectly, doctors get paid extremely well and none of them undergo massive personal risk. The few other professions that have both, we tend to view the same way. Police officers, soldiers etc. all carry those connotations of protection, risk, selflessness. While you could perhaps argue that we shouldn't consider any of those professions to be heroic, it's not reasonable to suggest that there's a double - standard involved. There's a fairly clear set of criteria which separates " heroic " from " non - heroic " professions, and those criteria aren't being inconsistently applied. | cmv |
I don't think firefighters are heroes. CMV. | Typically, the other professions you cite don't combine danger and service. Firefighters deal with burning buildings every day. They often rescue people from these burning buildings, where they would otherwise die from the flames or the smoke. I mean, sure, roofers are potentially up high, as are loggers, etc., but they don't help anyone really. ( I mean, yes, they help, but not in a literally lifesaving way ) Doctors, air traffic controllers, and health inspectors also help people, but not under typically dangerous conditions. I think the word " hero " is far too liberally applied in our society, but firefighters probably deserve the label, at least some of them. | cmv |
I think that advertisements that are to sell a product are not intended to voice an opinion and as such should not be untouchable from legislation as such | Ok let's take a trip to a time where smoking doesn't have the horrible reputation it has today. A teenage boy with a crazy crush on the hot actress is watching TV. She comes on screen hanging of a man smoking a cigarette or smoking a cigarette herself and talking about how real men know a good smoke. How much chance do you think there is that the teenage boy is not going to grab a cigarette. But you might say we can regulate at what age they can buy cigarettes, but tell me this, how effective is legislation to stop underage drinking. So the government has absolutely lost the war on getting the message out that smoking is bad. But the government has a duty to aid its citizens even easily manipulated hormonal teens. So they go to the guys entrapping them in addictions and try to ease the message, get some money for treatment, making the economic price higher and so on. It's the one of few tools the government has to attack the problem at its source. | cmv |
I believe that men should exist in a default state of * non - consent * regarding parental obligations prior to conception. CMV | Men can and do " give up rights " to their child at birth or at some point in the child's life. They cease paying child support, no longer spend time with them and give up all rights to the child. It makes sense however that men have no role in the pregnancy itself, because the pregnancy involves the body of the mother. | cmv |
I believe that men should exist in a default state of * non - consent * regarding parental obligations prior to conception. CMV | You provide counter - counter - arguments to your statement, but you fail to explain why it would be superior to the current situation. How would you know whether a man had " consented? " Are you suggesting that paperwork would have to be filled out before sex? This would be an extremely complex process, especially when you take into gray areas. For example, women desiring child - support would have an incentive to claim that they had been raped. When a man has unprotected sex, it his his responsibility to know that he might produce a child, and be ready for the consequences of his actions. | cmv |
Politics is a relic of a barbaric past. CMV | From what I gather, your only real objection is to shrinkwrapped social contracts. You object to the idea that you can be saddled with obligations at birth, correct? This is morally problematic, but there is a rather large argument that it is a necessary evil. | cmv |
Politics is a relic of a barbaric past. CMV | I think quite a lot of society would quite happily be rid of anyone who doesn't want to be part of their society. I personally will never accept any citizenship with any immigrationists or their people. All of the'left'are just the thugs of particularist rather than universalist'right'or conservatives. | cmv |
Politics is a relic of a barbaric past. CMV | Politics is one of the ways in which we separate ourselves from our barbaric past. A society as large as ours needs some sort of leadership to function smoothly, and as ugly as the process of choosing that leadership is, at least we all have some influence in it. It sounds like what you want is a society without organization, which would quickly descend into the exact barbarism you claim you wish to avoid. Without collectively enforced controls to keep a leadership structure in place, the strongest man with the most influence and least scruples will become the de - facto leader - history has shown this over and over again. Once that leader takes over, these freedoms you think you're being denied at the moment will look pretty appealing, I promise you. | cmv |
Politics is a relic of a barbaric past. CMV | In my experience " politics " is the art of influence. It can go the way you want it or the way your opponents want it to go. So if you were to fight your point, you would be engaging in politics. That being said I think you are more speaking to society as a whole. The left you are referring to are " progressives, " as there are very few historic democrats left. The left ( progressives ) are looking to reinvent society as a whole, using social and physical science ( as we believe it to be. ) On the other hand the right ( Republicans ) believe nothing was broken since the inception of the Bill of Rights, and appreciate the stats quo. Different strokes for different folks. TL : DR, You making this post means you engage in politics. Politics by it's nature is ugly. | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | How will the free market system deal with the increasingly likely probability that eventually production will require almost no labor, because it is all automated? A very small number of people will be needed to make the machines, and service the machines, but all other production is quickly being pushed towards robotics. Even in China, Foxconn is replacing human workers with machines, and they have some of the cheapest labor around. One can argue that a service economy will replace the production economy, but since all people need physical goods, the vast majority of wealth will flow towards capitalists, who can themselves only spend so much on services. This isn't a question about the ethics of it all. I totally agree that voluntary exchange is the only ethical system. This is about how, practically, to keep the free market running when all the wealth flows to a very small number of people that themselves can't spend enough to keep the economy running. | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | Free market systems maximize short term profits, but at the cost of sacrificing long - term well - being. Individuals tend to be self - centered and they work to maximize their own happiness, which typically entails using up as many resources as they can possibly get their hands on. Because many resources are non - renewable ( such as fossil fuels, ) free market systems inherently over - consume these resources, causing major problems such as pollution, and giving rise to shortages in the future. The problem is that no one is paying the externality costs - you need a government in order to effectively force people to pay the costs associated with the externality, thus achieving an efficient economy. Therefore, free market systems have two fundamental problems : inherent inefficiency due to lack of consideration given to externalities, and inherent overconsumption due to lack of consideration given to future generations. A strong government can fix both these problems ( which is different than saying that they currently do fix these problems, but that's a different discussion. ) Free market systems are only efficient if you ignore externalities and assume perfect information, and even then they are only efficient in the short - term, not the long - term. tl ; dr : Free markets are focused on the present and therefore overconsume non - renewable resources, and they lack mechanisms to deal with externalities. ( See my CMV for more discussion. ) | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | I generally agree with you, but I look at it this way : A free market is to economics what a frictionless environment is to physics. It's not something you can get in the real world, but it helps make predictions about what will happen if you change certain variables. From a practical standpoint, I think we should try to get as close as we can to a free market to minimize inefficiency, but there are places we may decide the social benefits of a less free market are worth the economic consequences. The problem really arises when people pretend we can get the social benefits without the economic consequences. | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | capitalism ( austrian or not ) is predicated on both scarcity and constant growth. it efficiently channels resources that could support all to a few with no regard for long term management and then forces the rest to fight for what's left. the fact that this fighting is efficient is used as a defense for the system as a whole. | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | There are awesome things about the free market, but many benefits require everyone to be rational and have perfect information. That... isn't exactly the case. Many problems could heoretically be solved by the free market, asumming no one ever lies or is short sighted. | cmv |
I believe that the principles of free market economics represent the best economic system and should be strictly adhered to. CMV! | To be honest, you have defined your statement very clearly. You say you think it is the best, but that's not a clear statement. Do you think that it is the best in that is the most fair? That it provides everyone with equal chances? The average life quality is highest? It creates the highest GDP per capita? We need to know which of these you think it creates in order to argue against it properly. | cmv |
I don't think the NSA spionage is as horrible as it is made up to be. CMV | The problem is the government, centralized through the executive branch, is creating a massive information infrastructure. What if an outright criminal President, someone like Nixon, or a borderline demagogue like Ted Cruz gets their hand on this in the future? How many political enemies would slandered and silenced? I find the implications for democracy terrifying. | cmv |
I think Edward Snowden had a better chance of an open consideration of his leaks had he relied on the American public for pressure on his own government rather than other nations'governments'asylum. CMV | Snowden made the right choice, because a fugitive on the run from the most powerful country in the world who appears ( I'm not arguing whether this is true or not ) to be fighting for transparency and private freedoms is a powerful media figure who will always make the headlines. Compare with Assange, who even from his ambassadorial " exhile " still gets printed with ever little thing he says. He's an exciting media figure, the leader of a transparency organization fighting against the power and might of the US government ( and others ). Compare with Manning, who you hardly hear of these days ( in the mainstream media ). By now he's only a soldier accused of treason going through a not spectacular trial, incapable of providing any more juicy leaks. When is the last time you ever heard a statement from Manning in the evening news? exactly. If he wants to be heard, if he wants to not be forgotten, what path should Snowden walk down? You know the answer by now. | cmv |
I think Edward Snowden had a better chance of an open consideration of his leaks had he relied on the American public for pressure on his own government rather than other nations'governments'asylum. CMV | This assumes that a sizable population ( in the US or the World ) cares enough about his message and / or him. Most people weather on the planet or in the US don't really care much, as long as they are getting the next shinny widget at 25 % off on the next sale, get the latest star gossip, vote for the next singer / actor, and are able to go through life. What he provided should have been enough to start massive protests especially in the US, which did not really happen. It is like people just don't really care. Do you think anything that he does would change that? I don't personally believe that. | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | An overall trend I see is that you say that women are on average inferior ( strength, ability, etc. ) to men. But that doesn't mean that no women should be allowed to be at the front lines. There are plenty of men who are too weak to be in the military, and they aren't fighting at the front lines. They weed out the weaker men in various training programs, they could do the same for women. | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | So OP, how about if a woman takes steroids or other hormones to boost their strength and endurance to levels that are higher than the average man. Are you still saying that woman shouldn't be allowed to join the infantry? Meanwhile, some scrawny guy should be seriously considered and given the opportunity? | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | Consider the shifting patterns of war. We are slowly replacing foot soldiers, and it's not like we fight with sticks and stones ( or swords, or on horses ) anymore. " Frontlines " is becoming a term harder and harder to define. So when physical capabilities become less and less important - physical differences also tend to be less of an issue. Also - when the individual is certified for combat - what does it matter what gender they are? | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | Assuming for a moment that these are true, why would you require that their average advantages must be at least the same as men's average advantages, before allowing them at all? Such a policy would effectively allow men that barely fulfill all criteria, while rejecting the strongest possible women, just because they are of the " wrong gender ". Shouldn't you apply a single set of minimum criteria, no matter what the gender is? | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | I've never heard the ligament thing, but women are less likely to get back injuries and our muscles recover faster. The reason the statistics on physique don't matter as much as you think is that sex is only one factor and only accounts for about a 10 % difference overall. Basically what this means is that the only percentile that will probably not have any women is the ninetieth or higher and the only one with no men is the tenth or lower. The military is not restricted to only the top 10 % of athletes already. The bit about greater physical and mental torture is unfounded as far as I can see ( any source )? I'm pretty sure to torture hurts men a lot too. Isn't that the whole point if torture, to keep going until it hurts? | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | The fact is that women already were serving in combat roles, even prior to the ban being lifted, and that the " front lines " in our wars in Afganistan and Iraq are blurry and not like what one may think of as a traditional front line. Your reasons for wanting the ban reinstated reek of sexist notions about women. I think before you try to change your mind about women in combat, you need to reexamine how you feel about women in general. | cmv |
I don't believe women should be allowed to fight on the front lines of war CMV | Being a successful combat soldier has to do with a lot more than pure physical strength. Women can use weapons, make quick decisions, work in groups, give and follow orders, and take risks just as effectively as men. Who can bench more isn't as important as you'd think when determining who the best soldier is. | cmv |
I think the Internet is a much greater tool for politics than people seem to believe. CMV. | The author of this article does a good job of addressing this. I'd say that particularly with respect to the Arab Spring, the role of the Internet has been over - hyped by Western media. Any social movement will take advantage of available technology, but the upheavals in 1848 in Western Europe and in 1989 in the Soviet Union predated the Internet. So did the Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 ( and many others ). The Western Media ran with Twitter and Facebook as the story because that was an easy hook for people who didn't know anything about social conditions and politics in the Middle East. | cmv |
CMV I think that all government and government supported aid = dead aid ( ty DAMBISA MOYO ) | I am unclear how funneling the money through NGOs would help the problem you are asking about. The money would still come into the country and would benefit the leaders of the state. Regardless, you do have a point that in many cases the people at the top of these states do benefit from the aid. But the other citizens benefit as well. Definitely not as much, but they do benefit. Under your argument, we would deny these individuals any aid at all because we want to make sure the guys at the top don't get anything. This would be akin to saying we should cut off all social services in our own countries because a small percentage of people abuse them. In any charitable situation some people will abuse the charity. But you have to accept that in order to help the ones most in need. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | Well let's step up the trolley problem. Suppose you work for the NSA. Someone contacts you and says he will drop a nuke on NYC unless you blow up an elementary school while the kids are inside. What do you do and why? And before I go any further, how deep is your knowledge of ethical philosophy ( Kantianism, moral absolution, etc )? | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | I don't think you understand the force of the utility monster objection. If we ought to maximize total utility, then in the presence of a utility monster we ought to only care about the happiness of the utility monster to the chagrin of the rest of the population. No matter how much the population suffers, the utility monster's increased happiness makes up for it. To put this in quantifiable terms, take a situation in which one hundred people are moderately happy ; lets say that happiness is measured in utils and each person has 100 utils, leading to a total of 10, 000 utils. Consider two actions, one which increases everyone's utils by 5 and another which reduces everyone's utils to 1 except for the utility monster, who is one of the hundred, whose utils increase to 1, 000, 000. The first action leads to a total utility of 10, 500 while the second action leads to a total utility of 1, 000, 099. If what we ought to do is maximize total utility, then we ought to perform the second action rather than the first, but this is surely not right. It is not morally right to reduce everyone to conditions barely worth living even if one person becomes so extremely happy that total utility is increased. This SMBC comic does a good job of illustrating the problem of utility monsters for total utilitarianism. This objection is not to utilitarianism per se, but only utilitarianisms that focus on total, and even average, utility. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | How do you assign values to different people's well - beings? Suppose your child is hurt in an accident, and if he doesn't get a $ 10, 000 surgery, he'll die. If he gets the surgery, he'll be mostly fine. Alternatively, you could spend the $ 10, 000 to buy mosquito nets for children in Africa. No doubt you would save more lives if you donated the money to a mosquito net charity, but then your child would die. If you'd save your child in this scenario because you value his well - being more highly than the well - being of strangers, you are not a utilitarian. Utilitarianism requires that you assign an equal value to the well - beings of all people. But why should you? | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | You'll get far more happiness of having me die ( you're on my testament ), than I will ever have by living ( I'm kind of depressed ). How could you base any moral system on happiness, a thing highly subjective and practically impossible to measure? Replace " happiness " in your argument by " number of stars each one can count in the sky ", it make no sense to base a moral system on that. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | Have you ever heard of the Hedonic treadmill? It's basically a concept in psychology where people pursuing happiness are like runners on a treadmill. No matter what good or bad events befall a person they always eventually return to their happiness set point. If this theory reflects reality, utilitarianism seems to have a major flaw. Even if we make things absolutely horrible for a person, they'll eventually settle to their happiness set point. Essentially, utility becomes a useless measure since World A could have everyone enslaved but happy while World B could have the very same people free and happy, and utilitarianism couldn't point to one world or the other being better or worse. Unless we have some reason to believe that slavery is an inferior state to non - slavery the Hedonic Treadmill would leave us ambivalent about which world to prefer. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | The fundamental basic problem with utilitarianism is that it doesn't admit the possibility of any fundamental rights or freedoms. Anything that would increase the utility of the collective is ok, even laudable. I, personally, believe that it is evil to initiate aggression against any person for any reason. The key word being " initiate ". It is morally acceptable to engage in self - defense. In a utilitarian world, we should, by the basic principle, sacrifice the life of 1 person to save the lives of 10 people. For example, if 10 people need transplants to live, pure utilitarianism says that we can abduct any random person on the street, murder them, and give their organs to the 10 people in need of transplants, and that this is a moral outcome. It's morally wrong to sacrifice that one person, regardless of the advantages. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | The classic counter argument is the organ donor dilemma. 7 brothers come into a hospital. 6 need organs and the 7th needs an appendectomy. Would you kill the 7th in order to save the 6? | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | The utilitarian system of morality makes sense to a certain extent, but the problem with this system is that it contradicts human nature. Think about the person that you love most in this world. It could be a parent, a child, a SO, or a friend. If you were to pick between saving the life of the person you love most in this entire world, or saving 3 random lives of people you have never met, which option would you choose? I am assuming that you would choose the first option, because it affects you in a negative way, even though it's the option that decreases total utility by the largest amount. You are a person who thinks that the utilitarian standpoint should be the only way to judge morality, but plenty of things you do or would do in certain situations would be deemed'immoral'if viewed from a utilitarian standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I use the utilitarian morality to justify my opinions in plenty of situations. I believe that Neo should have chosen the blue pill, I believe that 1984 has a happy ending, and I believe that religion should continue to exist as long as it produces more happiness than sadness. However, I still wouldn't go as far to say that it is the only valid system of morals, since judging all behavior through the utilitarian standpoint would either force us to deny human nature, or make us all criminals just because of our natural instincts. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | I see what you're getting at, but I think there are two big problems with Utilitiarianism. 1 ) It's meaningless. Every philosophy claims to what's best for everyone. Objectivism, which is probably one of the most diametrically opposed philosophies to what you are describing, still claims that by everyone acting selfishly we can create a better society. 2 ) When we define " utility " as happiness, then we end up with a horrible and non - functional society. Couldn't we just stick wires in everyone's brains'pleasure centers and let everyone die happy? Wouldn't that be the most happiness for the greatest number? | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | Hypothetically lets say that the majority of people don't support gay people's right to get married. Getting married is obviously a bonus for the gay minority, but the majority who don't support stand to " lose " happiness if gay people get married. Who's in the right here? There are situations where the morally right thing to do is completely unrelated to how many people support the action. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | I know this sounds weird, but if you like reading fantasy books and you want to be proven wrong, read The Sword of Truth series. The author gets very preachy about this issue and has a very strong argument. I'm not saying that there aren't much better ways to change your mind... just that this was the first thing to pop into my head and everything he says I could never say half as well. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | you have a group of 100 people... 99 of which are happy church goers. The one person is a sociopath. he murders all of them and increases his happiness greatly while all the others happiness falls to zero. ( see utility monster ) Consider Deontological ethics actions are only moral if they are done in good will or are intrinsically good ( pleasure, happiness, intelligence are not intrinsically good ) | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | In that case we should probably all get on heroin ASAP right? The thing is, pure utilitarianism can lead to absolutely atrocious actions against individuals if it is thought it is better for the collective. Besides, utilitarianism can only work with total information - often we have a very vague idea of the outcomes of our actions. I think you should look at Rawls'veil of ignorance, which is an interesting variant of utilitarianism ; also Mill's clause that we should not adopt a philosophical position that can endanger the identity of humanity ( atrocious acts à la Mengele ). | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | In general, who is a member of the collective is an under discussed aspect of the question of utilitarianism in my experience, and ends up controlling almost all of the end results. What are the morals of who you choose to and not to admit into this collective? This does not appear to be addressed at all in your outline of your philosophy. Examples of further questions on this line : Are non - humans admittable? If so, do humans have a privileged status ( i. e. an additional variable where before there was none ), and are there any other forms of privilege? If not, why not, and also what is a human ( i. e. what if you breed your collective into a group of creatures that are always happy, is that a desirable result )? If the set of the collective is less than all living things, what are the morals of treating creatures that are not part of the collective? Always a question, but becomes particularly severe in a heterogeneous collective, what is happiness? | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | While I agree that utilitarianism is the only valid moral system, I think that focusing only on happiness is not the right way to do it. Human values are much more complex than that. For example, would you want to hook up some wires to the pleasure center of your brain, so that you could just lie in bed and feel as much happiness as possible for the rest of you life? Would you want a supercomputer to plan your life for you, and make every decision for you to maximize your happiness? Would you want to take a pill that got rid of boredom, so you could keep doing the same thing over and over for the rest of your life? I think most people wouldn't want any of this, even if it made them happy, because we care about other things than happiness as well, like freedom and self - determination. There is a series of blog posts about this on LessWrong that explains this much better than I can. The most relevant post is probably Not for the Sake of Happiness \ ( Alone \ ). The whole series can be found in The Fun Theory Sequence and Complexity of Value. | cmv |
I believe Utilitarianism is the only valid system of morals. CMV. | Okay so, say the world is exactly the same as it is now, except that we begin to follow utilitarian ethics in law. Now clearly, there are some really unhappy people in society ( homeless, depressed, etc. ) and a lot of people who would be happier if these people weren't around. If these people started " disappearing " average happiness could increase quite quickly. Indeed, if people were unhappy with this form of government, it would be easier to increase average happiness by killing them than by making them happy. In my opinion, the better moral code is that every person has dignity that should not be infringed upon. This dignity contains their rights. The idea is to give everyone the opportunity for happiness, not too guarantee increased average happiness at the expense of even a few people. | cmv |
Judicial review of federal legislation isn't a good idea CMV | The Supreme Court specifically does not act as an extra veto point on legislation. The Supreme Court can only act on a law if someone affected by the law challenges it and the case makes its way through the federal court system to the top. The judges are unelected and without terms to protect them from political windfalls, but they aren't guaranteed a position no matter what until they die - if they are so out of touch that they pose a serious problem then they can be removed from their post. | cmv |
Judicial review of federal legislation isn't a good idea CMV | It is a basic part of the American System. It is checks and balances. The three political branches act as a check on each other and balance out the power. Without judicial oversight, laws can be passed with no regard for their impact, fairness, or justice. | cmv |
I believe that parents who force their children to forgo medical treatment for illnesses and instead opt for prayer are irresponsible and should be charged with child endangerment. CMV | What medical care, specifically? Who is the authority which pronounces the must have versus experimental care procedures? For example, the leader researcher for the Gardasil and Cervarix thinks the benefits of the shots are overblown and doesn't support mandatory use of them, but some states require it. Or what about the polio vaccine? Death rates had declined by well over 50 % and were on a rapid downward trajectory before the introduction of the vaccine, which we later determined tens of millions of vaccinations were infected with cancer inducing viruses. Now, those countries which vaccinated for polio have cancer rates over 5 times higher than those that did not. Who is the ultimate authority that gets to weigh the pros and cons of complicated decisions like this? Shall it be you, OP? | cmv |
I believe that parents who force their children to forgo medical treatment for illnesses and instead opt for prayer are irresponsible and should be charged with child endangerment. CMV | I'll devil's advocate here. It's unethical for the state to force any sort of medical procedure on a fully grown adult capable of making decisions, with the exception of situations where that adult is capable of hurting other people ( has a disease and needs to be quarantined / vaccinated ). If the government were to prosecute parents for this, it means the government is denying parents their right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. ( Okay, that's a lame argument... I'll try harder ) Furthermore, we hear mostly about cases where the child had a treatable disease. What about instances where the child is probably going to die, and the parents decide to forgo painful chemotherapy that probably won't work? Plenty of cancer patients will instead opt for palliative care to live the rest of their life in a dignified manner ; shouldn't parents be allowed to do the same? | cmv |
I believe that parents who force their children to forgo medical treatment for illnesses and instead opt for prayer are irresponsible and should be charged with child endangerment. CMV | Does that apply to anything a doctor recommends? What if the doctor is wrong? You're placing too much power in doctors, which can lead to medical tyranny when combined with state power. | cmv |
I believe that parents who force their children to forgo medical treatment for illnesses and instead opt for prayer are irresponsible and should be charged with child endangerment. CMV | This is already illegal, at least in the US. Many parents are already being charged for the deaths of their children when they prayed instead of seeking medical help. Are you arguing that they should be charged of child endangerment instead of reckless homicide? That this should be illegal someplace it isn't already? Something else? | cmv |
I believe that parents who force their children to forgo medical treatment for illnesses and instead opt for prayer are irresponsible and should be charged with child endangerment. CMV | We could even take religion out of this scenario all together and pose the question - if a parent does nothing at all for their child's medical condition, is it still endangerment? In this case, are we going to accept that doing nothing is wrong? And if so, at what point do we decide that praying away the illness is actually doing something effective? | cmv |
I believe that birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV | And by implants do you mean hormonal based implants? I hardly think requiring all pre - pubescent girls to be forcibly implanted with hormones that have potentially very serious side effects to be at all an equivalent to applying for a loan. Hormonal contraception isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure many women can take hormones without serious issues, many more will have more minor side effects, but there's also a non - insignificant number of women who have serious side effects. I took hormonal contraception for just six months before I came down with a potentially fatal side effect, pulmonary embolism. I'm lucky it happened to me as an adult, because I was able to recognize that something serious was amiss and get myself medical attention. I highly doubt pre - pubescent girls, which nowadays for girls is the 8 - 10 range, will really be able to communicate a serious medical problem in the same way an adult would be able to. | cmv |
I believe that birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV | It seems to me that the pursuit of procreation is a basic human right. Why not instead make birth control completely free for everyone and then have some kind of incentive for people to use it correctly until they reach a point in their lives when they are ready? Possibly a tax benefit for people who don't have children until they are 25, perhaps offering help with education costs as well so families have a better chance of being able to support their children later on. Also, if we make any rule to this effect, it should apply to everyone equally, male or female, regardless of social or economic class and not be aimed solely at the poor. In my opinion, a system that rewards people for making good decisions is way better than one that punishes them / takes away their rights for something that is, in many cases, a result of the life they were handed and not something they necessarily did wrong. | cmv |
I believe that birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV | In principle, I agree with you, but the problem would remain the same. The more person is educated, the less likely he has a desire to have child at all because of the costs of maintenance, time, responsibility etc. The better he / she understands the headaches it may incur in future. For a primitive person this is all God's will, Lord's gift, the rest shall not be discussed. Your method would only prevent primitive people from having childeren, but not encourage those who could bring up well - educated offspring. You might reduce population to some extent, but ultimately it would result in a demographic imbalance which currently takes place in China due to an overwhelming population of elderly and males. The question is if it is good for a society as a whole. Do we need well - educated citizen everywhere? At the end of the day someone has to do the low level job too. You may think of poverty as a problem to be solved, but it might be just some functional component of capitalistic society, if you like. | cmv |
I believe that birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV | I see where you are going with your idea, but I think the mistake that would be made if these rules were to be enforced is how a family is judged " able " to have a child. I think that's the gray area, because who are we to say whether or not a family is able to raise a good child? Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they won't make great parents. Just because someone was once a drug addict, doesn't mean that they turned their lives around and are ready to nurture a human being, and keep them off the track that they took on their life. I think it is the humanitarians that would have a problem with the idea. What makes it so the government can approve or disapprove a family of a child? In a country of democracy, that would not go over well with citizens. I can see people saying, " What separates us ( USA ) from communist China is our freedoms. Now, the government wants to infringe on our freedom to life and the pursuit of happiness. " See what I mean? | cmv |
I believe that birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV | I think you're not asking the right question. The question is not " how do we solve the problem of poor people having so many children and perpetuating the cycle of poverty? " The question is " why are they poor in the first place that causes them to want to have so many children " to be able to work jobs to provide sustenance and income? | cmv |
Because I learned a lot of cool stuff in the Utilitarian post, I thought I'd submit this : I believe Deontology is the only coherent moral system. CMV | So, what if, through a chain of complicated ( but direct ) causes and events, I could show you that not cheating on your wife would lead to a huge genocide in the area you live in. Would you still hold that you did the " right thing " by not cheating on your wife? If you don't think so, and, for whatever reason accept that in this case the moral thing to do would be to cheat on your wife, than you are, at least to some extent, accepting parts of consequentialism into your moral system. If you still think that you should not cheat on your wife, as it is still the " right thing " to do, than you've essentially put yourself into a situation where " the right thing " leads to a very, very undesirable outcome. Intuitionisticly, any moral system that allows you to justify actions that lead to genocide seems invalid ( at least, from my perspective ). | cmv |
Because I learned a lot of cool stuff in the Utilitarian post, I thought I'd submit this : I believe Deontology is the only coherent moral system. CMV | The problem with Kant's ethics is that while it carries an air of objectivity and claims to be " evaluating the actions themselves ", what it is actually doing is evaluating a chosen description of the action. So essentially, any moral evaluation is completely contingent on the linguistic phrasing used to denote what you are doing, which could take virtually an infinite number of different forms. So in order to be objective, a Kantian would have to be able to claim that there is an objectively correct linguistic description of every action, which can then be evaluated. We know this isn't possible though due to the nature of language and how it functions, and thus for this reason, Kantianism fails as a consistent moral system. | cmv |
I think that Obama has very little to do with the NSA / PRISM Scandal and should not be blamed. CMV | Obama is the head of the executive branch and therefore is in charge of absolutely everything it does. He has stated that he has been fully briefed on the NSA programs and their scope and he holds 100 % of the responsibility. That's part of what he signed up for when he became president. Bottom Line : Who do you blame when a company policy causes a problem? The man / woman in charge. | cmv |
I think that Obama has very little to do with the NSA / PRISM Scandal and should not be blamed. CMV | The diffrence is the Bush Administration wanted this. Obama Said Multiple times that he would stop this crap, Bush said what he wanted and did what he wanted, Obama just plain lied. If the Video fails to go the the time i wanted, the time is 7 : 58 | cmv |
I believe that an American must either support all rights granted their Constitution in it's entirety, or not at all. CMV | First, I think it's important to emphasize that the constitution has provisions for the procedure for amending the constitution, and this procedure wasn't " either keep all features or discard the whole thing and start from scratch ". The procedure was a policy on how to amend individual features, so this in itself indicates that from the very beginning it was considered reasonable that individual features might need to be changed. For example, to apply your reasoning would mean that during prohibition, those that proposed the 21st amendment ( reinstating alcohol ) to abolish the 18th should have felt obligated to oppose the entire constitution. Obviously we don't think this though, because their objection was limited to one amendment, not all of them, so why should they be obligated to oppose things they don't? | cmv |
I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV | It depends on what you believe makes a country " great ". If the welfare of the citizenry is what makes a country great, than, no, America does not get to claim that it is the greatest nation on Earth. If contributions to scientific and technological progress are what make a country great, than America does get to make such a claim. | cmv |
I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV | Who does have the right to claim it's the greatest country in the world? There's a laundry list of problems with every other country as well. Which country is the " greatest " depends on which issues are subjectively more important to you. Is math performance more important than financial wealth? Would income equality be more impressive than our military might? Japan has better education and is one of the healthiest countries in the world. Is it the greatest country in the world? Despite its economic uncertainty, environmental problems, and history of genocide? America's claim to say it's the " greatest country in the world " is as valid as any other country's. | cmv |
I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV | No one's country started out as a happy little paradise that people started building on. Every country has had it share of slaughter and bloodbath. Yours is just more recent than some other countries. Everyone has a bit of national pride, especially if they have spent their whole lives in the same country. | cmv |
I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV | don't all countries make the " best country in the world " claim? It's almost a self - esteem thing. I mean, really, I'd argue that it's very similar to an individual saying " I'm the best! " I mean, sure, other people are going to point and giggle a bit if you get too silly about acting it out, but most people think it's a fine thing to think of yourself as pretty great. That's the thing... without a " best at " addition, " I'm the best " is essentially a no - op. It's an affirmation of self - esteem ( or arrogance, depending on how you think of it. ) | cmv |
I think extreme anti - whaling sentiment is over - hyped. CMV | I'm not going to back Sea Shepherd since I think they are a bunch of eco - terrorists. But I'm happy to argue for a near - total ban on whaling if that's what you are looking for a discussion on. What is your exact position that you'd like debated? | cmv |
Global overpopulation is a huge problem, but there is no morally palatable solution to population control CMV. | The answer is " a " ( and maybe a little " b " ). Overpopulation seems intimidating, but it will ultimately be a non - factor in global development. How is this possible? Technology. Technology is advancing much more quickly than population. In fact, computers and all directly related technologies are increasing on an exponential curve. As a result, renewable energies like solar power and wind power, among others, are becoming exponentially more efficient every year. Given those trends, solar in particular will completely surpass fossil fuels in under 25 years. Other problems will be solved in a similar manner. More energy = more / better farming = more food, so that won't be an issue, etc., etc. The only places which will feel any effects from overpopulation are 3rd world regions like Africa ; however, I'm afraid the subsequent starvation will force the population to fall back down. | cmv |
Global overpopulation is a huge problem, but there is no morally palatable solution to population control CMV. | Reducing infant mortality, extending human longevity, and improving medical experience of life overall ( through vaccines and hygeine and the like ) has reliably, in culture after culture, resulted in significant drops in the birth rate. In Africa many families now try to have 3 sons. They expect 1 of them will die. 1 will stay at home and help with expenses around the house. The third, whichever ends up seeming most promising, will be sent to school in a Hail - Mary type move to try to break the cycle. Given them enough that they can have only 1 child and they will only have 1 child and will send that child off to school. | cmv |
Global overpopulation is a huge problem, but there is no morally palatable solution to population control CMV. | Predictions that show population rising rely on the assumption that it will continue to rise at the rate it currently is, but while population is increasing, the rate that it is increasing is decreasing. That means that in may be valid to product population levels to balance out or drop in the future. This is especially true when we consider that developed nations have lower birth rates, and the trend in undeveloped nations has been to become more like developed ones. Some developed nations, especially in Europe, have birth rates low enough to cause population to drop. That is also a bad situation because am aging population is a strain on the infrastructure and costs younger generations a lot of money. | cmv |
I believe transgenders should disclose their birth gender prior to intercourse. CMV | If you don't want to have sex with someone who is trans, then get in the habit of asking potential partners if they are. If their pants come off and you find yourself uncomfortable with their genitals, then you are free to not have sex with them. Its pretty sketchy to compel people to disclose personal information, particularly when it is something that could get them hurt. Anyway, there is no physical risk in having sex with a trans person as far as I know. This mindset basically boils down to asking people to sacrifice a civil liberty and risk being assaulted just because you feel a little bit squeamish about them. | cmv |
I believe transgenders should disclose their birth gender prior to intercourse. CMV | OP it's rude to post a CMV and then not respond, maybe I just haven't seen it but it need to be there. There's an inconsistency in you're argument, you claim that because gender is such an intimate part of who we are people should put disclaimer up that they were born as the wrong gender just so people know what they used to be rather than what they are. I think what you're doing is rationalizing a very instinctual reaction which is just " eww i find that gross " which is a perfectly legitimate reason to want to be told. if a transgender person should inform you about his or her past it's because it's safe to assume you might be uncomfortable with it not because it's some deep part of their identity. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | Maybe the issue you have with the word " hero " is that it's used in politics and media largely for pandering. It seems like the Democrats and Republicans are in a battle for who loves the military more. If you do hear the military refer to themselves as heroes its usually the top brass referring to those beneath him as heroes and not the other way around. Its use is again political. When an enlisted man refers to another enlisted man as a hero I pay attention to that. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | Not exactly a contrary position ; I think that Americans play the " Hero " card excessively in general. Not 100 % sure why they do that. They crave fame and admiration on a borderline narcissistic level. This cultural quirk is uncommon in the rest of the world. Want to know how often you see a news or tabloid headline with " Hero " in it here in my country? Once or twice per year. Dangerous jobs like firefighter have a very high mortality rate in international comparison, because Americans have a strong tendency to take stupid, unnecessary risks just to get attention and adulation. You can see it in most of their media products too. How do you recruit such people for a boring and dangerous abroad job with laughable pay and no real career perspective? You reinforce their hero complex whenever possible. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | Not sure if this has been said, but it's a lot easier for a politician to send a " hero " to war. Very superficial. Easy to see why it's overused in that sense. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | hero ( male ) and heroine ( female ) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence. By the definition they are not heroes. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | Military personnel have higher numbers of young people than other dangerous careers. Police and fireman are fairly professional in the US, whereas nearly anyone can join the service out of high school. This means we have people willingly risking their lives before they've even had a life at all. As for the rest of the military, who have families, these people spend YEARS on deployments in foreign countries with little time to see their children and spouses. Police officers and firefighters typically get to go home at night. To answer your question, military members sacrifice a lot more of there personal lives to serve us. | cmv |
I think the word " hero " is overused towards military personnel compared to other dangerous careers, CMV | I believe the term'' Hero'' can be wide ranging and include all manner of people. A person trained by a Government to kill another is not a hero in my book. Regardless of personal sacrifice or apparent'justness'of said skirmish. Soldiers are not inherhantly heroic, is anybody? Does anybody deserve to be called heroic for their job? Doctor? Nurse? Politician? Paramedic? | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | I wonder what your take on a group of peoples like the native americans before the white man came over. They lived as small villages with some kind of trusted leader for each and shared peace. Would they count for the anti - government or pro if they have a leader? | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | It seems like you're making an observation that is true, but overly broad : a society without a regional monopoly on the initiation of force ( a government ) would need to solve a variety of problems that don't currently exist. No anarchists dispute this. You may find anarchists'solutions to these issues compelling or not, but you need to realize that they do have a variety of solutions to many specific problems you could point out. It's also worth noting that the " vicious and unstable rule " you worry about is the status quo, from the perspective of anarchists. If you don't think a government is more legitimate than a warlord, there's nothing compelling about what you're saying. | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | Anarchy is statelessness ; at least have that much respect, both ancap and ancom thoerys have a " government " ( market and community resectivly ) even if they sound really strange and forced to those outside those communities. But the lack a monopolistic violent entity. Both rely on non - violent means to drive compliance ( and of course some degree of self defense ), namely do what we say or we won't feed you which is far better than a threat of death that either ends in me testing my luck and dieing or a cage. | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | Anarchists are against the state, not against government. The state, by definition, is the organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This is problematic to anarchists because they don't believe a minority of the population should make and violently enforce laws that affect the entire population. Government on the other hand, in the broadest definition of the word, is just the system that people use to govern their societies. Anarchists believe that society should be governed by consensus and direct democracy. Anarchists believe that violently forcing someone to do something is wrong, and generally believe that violence is only acceptable as an act of self defence or in defence of others. Anarchy doesn't mean chaos or lawlessness. It means people governing themselves collectively rather than being forcibly governed by others. | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | Anarchism is not only about the absence of the state, but the absence of oppressive systems. Sexism, racism, ageism, class, etc. It also does not mean the absence of rules, just rulers. You should come over to / r / anarchy101, we have lots of well read anarchists that can help change your view. I am on mobile at the moment so it's difficult to give you a full picture, but the ideas of Anarchism are far more complicated than a simple lack of government. Many of the posts I skimmed over are not giving you correct answers. | cmv |
I believe anarchists and those who believe society is even possible without " government " have either not thought their own views through or are willfully ignorant to the truth CMV | I would guess you're using game theory with assumptions that don't necessarily have to be true. For example, if you assume that people are attempting to maximize overall gains, rather than their own gains, you can get a very different analysis. While many people focus on their own gains, there are others who do focus on overall gains, and this often switches depending on the environment people are in. It may very well be possible to create an environment where people attempt to maximize the net gains of everyone, rather than focus on their own. | cmv |
I believe that so long as America has capital punishment, charges of rape and child molestation should qualify for capital punishment. CMV | I wouldn't feel comfortable with that at all. Rape is hard to prove, furthermore, there is a lot of false rape accusations out there, along with ever expanding definitions of what rape actually is. This could create an environment where men would be sent to their death no matter if they're guilty or not. Rape is one of the few crimes where the whole " innocent until proven guilty " thing goes out of the window. It's worth mentioning that I'm against the death penalty in general though. | cmv |
I believe that so long as America has capital punishment, charges of rape and child molestation should qualify for capital punishment. CMV | Our current capital punishment system hasn't worked for us so far, so why should we continue it? We've put too many innocents to death, and the methods of killing the " criminals " aren't even effective in the first place. What's best is to just give everybody a fair trial, and get solid evidence to lock criminals away for rehabilitation. Capital punishment is too extreme. I'd rather take the lesser of two evils and find out we convicted the wrong guy and sent him to jail than find out he's innocent AFTER he's been executed. | cmv |
I think birth control should be mandatory until you want a child. CMV | So here's a question for you. Say a scheme like this is actually enacted and the number of pregnancies and births drops dramatically, because only people who plan for a child will have one. What happens to the already low birth rates in most Western countries? So when that much smaller generation grows up who is then paying taxes or for your retirement? What about religions that don't believe in birth control at all. Should their concerns and beliefs be pushed aside and forced to use contraception? What if an equally ideal BC is never found for women? How would easily reversible, but non - hormonal and effective contraception actually work? From your post, it seems like the issue is that you're bothered by unplanned pregnancies in non - ideal situations. Thinking that other people are stupid and being offended by their decisions hardly seems a good enough reason to require universal birth control and violate people's rights. | cmv |
I think birth control should be mandatory until you want a child. CMV | I'll reply with the exact same thing I said in the other thread. The bodily autonomy of people is a fundamental human right that can only be infringed upon for the most urgent and grave reasons ( like quarantines for dangerous infections ). We are nowhere near having an overpopulation problem that requires we put everyone on birth control. There are several steps that we can take to population management before coming to those extremes and, historically, making birth control legally and cheaply available and educating women on their birth control choices has been incredibly effective at reducing birth rates. | cmv |
I think birth control should be mandatory until you want a child. CMV | If someone could have it removed at any time, why inconvenience people with a requirement to get it at all? If they can have it removed whenever, they can still easily make a stupid decision about birth control. And why should the government be allowed to force unnecessary medical treatments on anyone? It makes more sense to me to make something like this available freely to anyone who would want it as opposed to making it mandatory. | cmv |
I think monogamy is an unnatural and unrealistic expectation for most people to participate in long - term. CMV. | One thing that's important to take into account when talking about evolution is that due go our large brains, we take approx 13 years to become self sufficient compared to other primates 2. So that's 13 years in which if your parent dies of disease or something, you're screwed. Hence the drive towards forming strong family units. Does that neccisarrily mean the traditional nuclear family? No, but we have other drives than just spreading our seed as much as possible. | cmv |
People don't have any intrinsic right to their children, because of society decreeing that they do it blatantly encourages child abuse. CMV | I'd like to point out that the US used to require a test for something comparably important to society : voting. But rather than the intended measure of ensuring that the educated could vote, this measure was almost exclusively used as a tool of ethnic oppression. Additionally, when your proposal was tried in other nations, it was also used for ethnic oppression. See Australia's " Stolen Generations ". It seems likely that your solution would simply become an excuse to persecute members of minority groups that tend to be poorer and less educated. | cmv |
People don't have any intrinsic right to their children, because of society decreeing that they do it blatantly encourages child abuse. CMV | In response to the zoo argument : as someone who spent her entire life around cattle. If you take 1000 cow calf pairs, separate the calves for a day and turn them loose again, the next day every calf will be back with its mother. Every calf needs a mother, and every mother can only care for one calf, so it works. As for humans, children need to be cared for, and no one else has any more claim to it than the parents if the child is being cared for adequately. | cmv |
I believe mainstream Islam is barbaric by any objective definition of the word and should be called out, rather than be coddled, by the left. The reason being mainstream Islam condones murder for people who leave their faith ( apostasy ). CMV. | I currently live in the most Muslim country in the world... and I have never before met people so welcoming and open to people from all different countries and, yes, different religions. I think Islam is practiced in different ways all over the world... and at least in this part of the world violence and murder is in no way condoned. I think the very idea would horrify them. | cmv |
I believe mainstream Islam is barbaric by any objective definition of the word and should be called out, rather than be coddled, by the left. The reason being mainstream Islam condones murder for people who leave their faith ( apostasy ). CMV. | I will only say this : murder is never a penalty for a crime. Killing as a penalty for a crime is execution, not murder. What's the difference, you ask? Murder is a premeditated, purposeful, personal killing, while an execution is a killing as a legal remedy. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean that the execution is a murder instead. That said, executing people for apostasy is still barbaric. | cmv |
I believe that second amendment with regards to the gun control is outdated and needs review and discussion and doesn't hold any relevance in this age. CMV | Background checks are not in any way disallowed by the 2nd amendment. If Congress wants to implement those kind of policies it has the authority to do so. I think the American people really appreciate and support the idea of personal freedom. They see an attempt to ban firearm as an affront to their personal liberty and an example of the government frankly not trusting them. A lot of people don't see why the government has the right to tell someone why the can't own a firearm to protect themselves, hunt, or use for sport. The question of safety is frankly irrelevant to the discussion for many people. I think another aspect to be considered is that many people frankly just don't trust the government enough to do the right thing with these policies or believe that they will ultimately make them safer. The American government is very much based on this distrust of government and I don't think you can underestimate how ingrained this distrust is in American society. | cmv |
I believe that second amendment with regards to the gun control is outdated and needs review and discussion and doesn't hold any relevance in this age. CMV | There are some places in the country where there are still large, dangerous animals. There are also small animals that will eat your crops, or even your livestock. All ideological issues regarding self - determination, constitutionality, self - defense, and revolution aside, there is still a need for guns in the defense of human lives and livelihood. | cmv |
I believe that second amendment with regards to the gun control is outdated and needs review and discussion and doesn't hold any relevance in this age. CMV | As long as governments have weapons, the citizens right to bear arms remains relevant. If you dont believe me, ask the people of Syria. Why its not debated is because its a political loser and politicians from anything but the bluest of districts dont want to risk their seats. With 90 % of districts totally uncompetitive because politicians draw them that way there is no real motivation for debate. | cmv |
I believe that second amendment with regards to the gun control is outdated and needs review and discussion and doesn't hold any relevance in this age. CMV | The real idea behind the second amendment was to protect the people from a tyrannous government. You could look at it as the people controlling the government, rather than the government controlling the people. If the government can bear arms then so should the people, to stop the government if it were to turn bad. By allowing the government to run background checks, the people are saying that the government knows best when it comes to people, flying directly in the face of the idea of the second amendment! Would stricter gun control lead to less school shootings? Well there is little to suggest that more gun control = less crime. Take the ten year " assault weapon " ban, where changes in gun crime were indistinguishable. But even if we were to somehow to remove all guns from the face of the earth, people would still find ways to do harm, if it's not a gun it's a knife, if it's not a knife it's a rock. In terms of the background checks it isn't an end of the world scenario, but for every right that is taken away the people become more apathetic, the spirit of resistance cannot be taken away. | cmv |
I believe that the demonization of pedophiles, and referring to them as monsters and perverts, is not only maling the situation worse, but is immoral in itself. CMV. | Ok, first off, I've worked with convicted sex offenders. I think they are monsters because they see nothing wrong with abusing children. They rationalize their actions by saying the child wanted it our seduced them. Children ageing from eighteen months to Extern years old. Society punishes actions, community support for pedophiles that haven't acted on their impulses might exist someday, but not any time soon. It's rare for a pedophile to admit they are one before they act or get caught. there was a law and order : svu episode write a pedophile who hadn't acted confessed to his impales but they couldn't do anything. Anyways, pedophiles are monsters, just like murderers are monsters. They should find a way to get fixed, but a lot don't think being a pedophile is wrong. They are a danger to children. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.